It is said that the Gordian knot, an intricate set of knots, was impossible to unravel. Alexander is said to have cut it with his sword instead of bothering to find a way of opening the knot and so gained the right to rule the area. The author of the novel entitled Catch 22 instead envisioned a condition in which mutually conflicting imperatives make it impossible to solve a problem. This condition seems to apply universally to the underprivileged. A minimum quantity of some condition or thing is needed to break the vicious circle of a disadvantageous situation. And this needs a minimum component of advantageous circumstances to achieve – thus the catch 22.
Countries that are lagging in capital, economic ability, education, technology and several other aspects of modern advancement seem to be doomed to remain behind those who are advanced in these fields. However Japan and the “Asian Tigers” broke these shackles and now China has surged forward with a bang. So, we must accept that it is neither a catch 22 nor a Gordian knot. Yet, as surely, we have to acknowledge that we are still a long way behind them all in terms of material advantages and civic responsibility, to name the more pressing of our problems.
As before, my perspective is different from the refrain of our civil society. My friends believe that we should look for a success story and emulate it lock, stock and barrel. However, as usual, there are a few serious snags. The one that stumps “my friends” is: “which success story?” The one that bothers me is the “lock, stock and barrel” part. Pakistanis are excellent at learning by example and emulating a “best practice” to perfection but they must innovate in the process.
Another problem in case of Pakistanis is that they will need a corporate or conglomerate set of practices to cover the range of their needs of education. The SAMAJI web that binds us needs a vertically integrated syllabus to cater to the needs of religion, society, technology and science. Our grid of small ecological units, on the other hand, needs a horizontally incremental syllabus to facilitate governance. The cultural diversity is linked like vertebrae in a spine. However, the solution is not as intricate as it seems from the complexity of our needs.
I advocate that we should identify those traits of modernity which we would like to inculcate in our society. Then we should search for those cultural norms that are inhibiting our transition. What is the origin of human will? Properly classified the question lies within the purview of the subject of philosophy. Extended to its corollary: what makes individuals act or do things in a particular manner, we enter the realm of psychology. If the question is posed in a social context we begin to dabble in sociology, and if we ask it as a social function of time, we analyze history. For the communication of ideas, answers to these questions are imperative; motivation provides the key to communication and facilitates the transfer of ideas.
What I am advocating is that the Pakistani custodian or arbiter of social understanding should look at Pakistanis as the assortment of cultural communities that they are and find solutions to our problems that are workable. This is the task of the researchers of social knowledge whose work should get transmitted to what is now termed as the “undergraduate” level of education. In the article of today’s posts I have outlined some of the areas where such research needs to be performed. The key is social behaviors and economic activities of Pakistani citizens.
Believe it or not, as a motorist in England I found my street blocked by cars parked along the sides [half or more on the sidewalk]. I also found two car owners, going in opposite directions, who decided to chat about something and were unperturbed by the fact that I was stuck. A more frequent experience was on the road to Windermere, a popular scenic spot in north England. A cyclist was not expected to get off the road to allow a car to pass; and on the thin road, it was customary to drive behind a cyclist, sometimes for a mile or more, if oncoming traffic did not allow you to overtake.
During the weekend rush one had to travel for miles in a convoy because of the cyclist who was ahead of the column of motorized traffic. Oncoming traffic forced the cars behind the cyclist to overtake one at a time. If the cyclist were to get off the road for forty yards, as is the case in Pakistan, the entire lot could go through in one go. Is it fair to England’s motorists or are we unfair to our cyclists? That is not the question. I am neither advocating that we follow the British tradition for cyclists, or condemn it; but I am suggesting that both practices emerge from social usage. Now, social usage is a product of culture and perspectives. There is no ‘universal’ right in matters of traffic as a friend of mine likes to assert.
Over the years, the British have begun to sacrifice the needs of healthy and advantaged individual for those of the disadvantaged. You are prevented from parking in a spot, or sit on a seat for the disabled even if they are vacant and there is no claimant. That is their culture and perspective today; it was not so yesterday. If we have a more pragmatic approach, there is no harm; perhaps there may be benefit.
During a recent visit to Indonesia, I discovered that it was legal for motorcyclists to use certain footpaths at certain times in Jakarta. As the world’s second largest urban area, after Tokyo, the management of traffic during rush hour would have been a very serious problem if this policy had not been adopted. Obviously, someone put in the effort of researching how the ‘innovative’ person was breaking traffic rules to get things done. More to the point, someone was willing to listen to an “out of the box” solution to resolve the issue in response to culture and perspective. If I remember correctly, in Singapore, someone who violates a traffic light in a hurry is made to stop and direct traffic for a prescribed time. So, people are not hasty. Such is the social research we need to perform. This is the point I wish to make very forcefully today.
Like many Pakistanis, I have been a fan of Pakistan’s cricket team; especially Miandad whose impish temperament and on the field innovations kept spectators entertained and involved in the game without being flamboyant like Afridi or stylish like Zaheer Abbas. No, today’s post is not about cricket. I am still harping on education and social knowledge; with research in the forefront. However, the Pakistani cricket team is, to my mind, an excellent example of the socio-political dynamics that drive Pakistan.
Learning by emulation; playing the game as loners; suddenly realizing, in an all or nothing situation, that coordination is needed and, consequently, galvanizing into a motivated, integrated unit. These are some of the characteristics that make us one of the most entertaining teams in the game. These are characteristics of the Pakistani nation also; that is how we learn, work, and survive without the killer instinct of modernity.
Humans need knowledge to live as humans; eating, sleeping and other needs of “nature” which we share with animals are not the purpose of our being. In the social context, the need to know is transformed into a need to teach. The basic need to know and teach must be taken care of to maintain the material, mental, spiritual and technological standard that have been achieved by society. When a people wish to advance further in sensibility and ability, they need to gauge their own potential and look to their values instead of following a path that led others to success. Sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gander also, but one man’s meat is another man’s poison. A man can be pulled out of a well; not pulled if he is stuck in a tree.
By all means let us produce good science and improve the quality of our technological products, but let us also focus on our human capital. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed after six hundred years at the center stage of world affairs, the pragmatic Turks reduced their area and demography to manageable proportions. They evacuated areas where secession was likely and concentrated on Turkey. In our case, it is not territory but economic activity and areas of intellectual competition that we need to bring under control.
